F 685 
•847 3 

Copy J 

^ANSAS AND SLAVERY. 


SPEECH Y' V. ,,, 

0F 

HON. HENRY BENNETT, 

f ) K 

OF NEW YORK. 


Delivered in the U. S. House of Representatives, March 29, 1858. 


I.—SELECT COMMITTEE. 

Mr. Chairman : A select committee was or¬ 
dered by the House, authorized to send for per¬ 
sons and papers, and instructed to inquire wheth¬ 
er the Lecompton Constitution was acceptable 
and satisfactory to a majority of the legal voters 
of Kansas; and to inquire into all the facts 
connected with the formation of said Consti¬ 
tution, and Ihe laws under which the same was 
originated; and into all such facts and pro¬ 
ceedings as have t r anspired since the formation 
thereof, having relation to the question or pro¬ 
priety of the admission of said Territory into 
the Union under said Constitution. 

The contradictory statements of the different 
parties, the allegations contained in the Presi¬ 
dent’s Kansas message, and the charges of fraud 
in relation to the Lecompton Constitution, all 
required this investigation to be made, that the 
whole truth should be known before Congress 
acted upon the admission of Kansas. For this 
purpose, a select committee was ordered by the 
House. No bill was referred to it, nor was it 
authorized to report any measure for the action 
of the Hoqse. It had no legislative duty to per¬ 
form. Its whole duty was to send for persons 
and papers, to take evidence of the facts upon 
the subjects of inquiry referred to it, and to re¬ 
port the facts and the evidence to the House, for 
its consideration. It was strictly a committee 
of investigation. 

The Speaker, by appointing a majority of this 
committee opposed to the investigation, and to 
the resolution of the House by which it was or¬ 
dered— a thing unprecedented in appointing a 
committee of this kind, and in violation of all 
sound parllvimentary precedent and authority— 
placed an insurmountable obstacle in the way 
of proceeding with the investigation, without 


some further order or action by the House. No 
witness has been called or examined , and no evidence 
desired by those in favor of the investigation has 
been allowed to be taken. The proceeding has un¬ 
fortunately been conducted as a party question, 
and the majority of the committee have persist¬ 
ently overruled the minority in all their attempts 
to comply with the order of the House, and pro¬ 
ceed with the investigation. The majority have 
permitted copies of a few papers to be procured, 
such as go to sustain their line of argument in 
favor of the Lecompton Constitution, which 
were open and public, and within the reach of 
every member of Congress without the aid of a 
committee. But they have refused to take any 
evidence which would go to controvert their po¬ 
sitions or allegations. 

In effect, the majority of this committee , by a 
strict party vote , have refused to proceed and take 
evidence and examine witnesses , and have by their 
action overruled and disobeyed the order of the 
House, upon the ground that, in the view they 
entertain, the whole inquiry is immaterial; hold¬ 
ing this Constitution as a legal record complete 
and perfect, that no evidence could contradict or 
impeach, and no fraud could vitiate or destroy. 
This position is as unsound as the course of the 
majority is indefensible. 

The action of a court required to investigate 
the facts in relation to a disputed deed, that 
should allow its production, but refuse all evi¬ 
dence to show it a forgery, or that it was ob¬ 
tained by fraud, no one would justify or defend. 
Yet, that does not state the case so strongly as 
it may be stated against the action of the major¬ 
ity of this committee; as in that case the court 
would not only take the evidence, but decide 
upon it. The position of this committee was 
more like that of an examiner directed to take 










2 


the evidence in a cause, having no power to 
decide upon it, but to return it for the consider¬ 
ation of the court, who should set up his opinion 
that the court ought to act in the case without 
proof, and should therefore refuse, to take the 
evidence, and return only his views and opinions 
to the court, instead of the evidence as directed. 

The question of the effect of the evidence was 
not to be decided by this committee ; that would 
be to substitute their opinion for the judgment of 
the House. That question would properly arise 
after it was taken, and when it was considered 
by the House, and not before. And upon that 
subject there might be great differences of opin¬ 
ion. Each member would be entitled to judge 
and decide for himself, with all the facts before 
him. And the majority of the committee, in 
overruling the judgment and order of the House, 
and in substituting their views, have not only 
disobeyed its authority, but deprived every mem¬ 
ber of his right to have the facts before him, 
and of judging and deciding thereon for himself. 

The House and the majority of this committee 
are directly at issue. Whether the dignity and 
authority of the House shall be maintained, and 
its order enforced, or in this manner overruled, 
and defeated, is a matter to be decided by the 
House. As one of the minority of this committee 
I have performed my duty, by calling its atten¬ 
tion to the subject, and stating the facts as an 
explanation on their part, for not proceeding 
with the investigation, namely, that they were 
prevented from doing so by the action of the 
majority, which, at the last meeting, after direct¬ 
ing one of their number to make a report, ad¬ 
journed the committee without day. 

II.—EVIDENCE TAKEN. 

The majority of the committee say the only 
proof they deem material is documentary, “ about 
which there can be no dispute.” Had that been 
the opinion of the House, no investigating com¬ 
mittee would have been ordered. The majority 
return an opinion, that the facts to be investigated 
are immaterial; in other words, they are in favor 
of the Lecompton Constitution , no matter how dis¬ 
honest and fraudulent it may be , and no matter how 
much the people may be opposed to it. Therefore, 
all the evidence proposed, they say, is immateri¬ 
al ; yet they present quite an imposing statement 
in their report, as a full history of this Constitu¬ 
tion. 1. The laiv to take the sense of the people 
as to calling a Convention.* 2. The law to call 
the Convention. 3. The registry and apportion¬ 
ment. 4. The proceedings of the Convention. 

5. The Constitution. 6. The vote as to the pre¬ 
tended adoption of the Constitution. All these 
they deem material. And they say they permitted 
the following to be taken, as immaterial: 7. The 
law of December 17, 1857, submitting the Con¬ 
stitution to a fair vote. 8. The result, as certi¬ 
fied, of that election. 9. Mr. Calhoun’s state¬ 
ment to Senator Green. When this statement 
is examined, it will be found that no evidence has 
been taken, of any kind sought or contemplated. 

The laws referred to as published, and the 
Constitution as presented, all could have, and 
they have, in no way been proved before the 
committee. How these laws have been executed, 


or what has been done under them, is not shown. 
There is no proof as to the proceedings taken 
under the first law. It is said only a few votes 
were given, and that it could in no sense indi¬ 
cate the sentiment of the people. There is no 
evidence, even, which way the majority was, so 
far as votes were given. There is no evidence 
as to the number of people there are in Kansas ; 
but the best evidence to be had would not make 
its whole population fifty thousand—not enough 
to entitle it to admission, or to a single Repre¬ 
sentative in Congress. 

The proceedings under the law to elect dele¬ 
gates are not shown. A copy of an extract of a 
Kansas newspaper has been obtained, which is 
not evidence, and which, if admitted, only shows 
that the law was not complied with. The result 
or vote at this election is not shown. The pro¬ 
ceedings of the Convention are only shown by 
producing a part of a mutilated journal, called 
the Journal of the Convention, but not proved 
in any way. An extract from a newspaper , and 
part of a journal , mutilated and not proved ’, is the 
sum total of facts , or evidence of facts , obtained by 
this committee. The last part of the journal, that 
which might show something as to the adoption 
of the Constitution, or about its submission, has 
been taken off. There is no proof, the Constitu¬ 
tion is as adopted by the Convention. It has 
been in suspicious hands ever since, and there 
should be some evidence of its genuineness, as 
well as of the election of the delegates according 
to the law. That election was to be held after a 
census and registry of all the legal voters ! There 
is no evidence this was done. What a full com¬ 
pliance with the order of the House! In one 
word , there has been no legal evidence of any fact 
taken before the committee. Even Calhoun was not 
allowed to be examined! The House might as 
well not have ordered the committee, as to have 
one thus appointed , and thus refusing to act! 

III.—ENABLING ACT. 

The Territories of the United States are under 
the government and control of Congress. No 
legal proceedings can be taken to organize a 
State Government in a Territory, except by the 
authority of Congress. Any proceedings adopted 
in the Territory for that purpose, (without such 
authority,) whether originating with the Legisla¬ 
ture or the people, can only be regarded as an 
unauthorized voluntary application, and is enti¬ 
tled to no consideration, except as an expression 
of the sentiments and wishes of the people. If 
it is clearly shown to be the expression of the 
will ot a majority of the people, Congress may 
adopt it; otherwise, it should be rejected. 

The Territorial Legislature, as such, has no 
power to call a Convention to form a State Con¬ 
stitution, in order “to subvert” the Territorial 
Government. In the case of Arkansas, this was 
so decided by the Attorney General, Mr. Butler. 
He said : 

“To suppose that the legislative powers granted to the 
General Assembly include the authority to' abrogate, al¬ 
ter, or modify the Territorial Government established by 
the act of Congress, and of which the Assembly is a con¬ 
stituent part, would be manifestly absurd. Consequent¬ 
ly, it is not in the power of the General Assembly of 
Arkansas to pass any law for the purpose of electing 
members to a Convention to form a Constitution and 








3 


State Govern me it, nor to do any other act, directly or 
indirectly, to create such new Government. Every such 
law. even though it were approved hy the Governor of 
the Territory, would be null and void ; if passed by them, 
notwithstanding his veto, by a vote of two thirds of each 
branch, it would still he equally void.” 

In the case of Michigan, the President (then 
in the Senate) held the same doctrine. He said : 

“ No Senator will pretend that the Territorial Legisla¬ 
ture ht,d any right whatever to pass laws enabling the 
people to elect delegates to a onvention for the purpose 
of forming a State Constitution. It was an act of usurpa¬ 
tion on their part.'' 

k But the President and his friends insist that 
the organic act, in this case, conferred upon the 
people of Kansas the right to form their State 
Constitution in their own way. If this were con¬ 
ceded, the authority was given to the people ., and 
not to the Legislature. The authority granted 
to the Legislature is specified in that act, and none 
was given in any form to call a Convention to 
form a State Constitution. If the act authorized 
the people to form a State Constitution, it was 
independent of the Legislature; and the Tope- 
, ka Constitution was made and adopted in a legal 
and regular manner. 

IV.—TOPEKA CONSTITUTION. 

Early in 1855, and long before the Lecompton 
fraud was planned, impelled by the alarming 
condition of the Territory, the people took pro¬ 
ceedings to form a State Constitution, to ask ad¬ 
mission as a State, and place themselves under 
the protection of law. The first Convention of 
delegates elected, met at Topeka on the 19th of 
September, 1855. They made no Constitution, 
but provided for a fair election of delegates to a 
Constitutional Convention in October, 1855. And 
at a general election, delegates were fairly elect¬ 
ed from the whole Territory, by a vote of two 
thousand seven hundred and ten, all voting who 
chose to vote, and the rest assenting, according 
to the latest Democratic creed. The delegates 
assembled and proceeded to form a Free-State 
Constitution—one as unobjectionable as that of 
any State in the Union. That Convention di¬ 
rected the Constitution to be submitted to a vote 
of the people, for their adoption or rejection, at 
an election to be held on the 15th of December, 
1855. At that election it was voted upon and 
adopted by a vote of between two and three thou¬ 
sand, only forty-six votes being given against it. 

As before, this election was fair, and all had 
an opportunity to vote, and all were therefore 
concluded. 

This movement originated with the people. It 
was three times before them at elections, at the 
last of which it was fairly adopted. At each of 
these elections, a larger vote was given than was 
given for the Lecompton delegates. And if ever 
those not voting should be held as assenting and 
concluded, it should be so held in this instance. 
The people of Kansas have, then, “ in their own 
way, and in strict accordance with the organic 
act, framed a Constitution and State Govern¬ 
ment,” “ which is republican in form,” according 
to the President’s own theory. This Constitu¬ 
tionframed at Topeka was, in truth and in fact, 
the act and deed of the people of Kansas, made 
by them, without any dictation, and in their own 


way. If no enabling act was necessary, it was 
strictly legal and regular. And, in any view, it 
was as legal and regular as the Lecompton Con¬ 
stitution can be regarded. Besides, it was fairly 
submitted to and adopted by the people. The 
other never was. 

As early, then, as December, 1855, there had 
been a State Constitution not only made, but 
adopted by the people, and the Territory wa3 
prepared for admission as a State. If, after that 
time, as the President insists, “ no authority ex¬ 
isted in the Territorial Legislature which could 
possibly destroy its existence or change its char¬ 
acter,” then the whole of the proceedings of the 
Lecomptonites were irregular and void. For the 
law to elect.the Lecompton delegates was passed 
by the Territorial Legislature in February, 1857, 
more than a year after the people of Kansas had, 
in their own way, made and adopted a Constitu¬ 
tion, and prepared the Territory for admission as 
a State. 

V.—LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. 

The first proceedings for the Lecompton Con¬ 
stitution were taken, not by Congress, or by the 
people of Kansas, but by the so-called Territori¬ 
al Legislature. This was irregular and wrong. 

1. If it had been a legal Legislature, it had 
no power to do this. “ It ivas an act of. usurpa¬ 
tion,” according to the President. 

2. This was not a legal Legislature; it was 
not elected by the peopie ; it could not represent 
them. It was an unlawful assembly, imposed 
upon the people of Kansas by foreign violence 
and votes, as has been established by legal evi¬ 
dence, taken by order of the last Congress. Con¬ 
gress could not make this illegal assembly the 
real representatives of the people. It never at¬ 
tempted to do so, as has been erroneously as¬ 
sumed. The people refused to recognise it. And 
in the last Congress the House of Representa¬ 
tives denied its authority, and declared all its 
proceedings void. The following is a copy of 
the preamble and first section of the act, as 
passed by the House: 

“ Whereas the President of the United States transmit¬ 
ted to the House, by message, a printed pamphlet, pur¬ 
porting to be the laws of the Territory of Kansas, passed 
at Shawnee Mission, in said Territory; and whereas un¬ 
just and unwarramed test oaths are prescribed by said 
laws as a qualification for voting or holding office in said 
Territory; and whereas the committee of investigation, 
sent by the House to Kansas, report that said Legislature 
was not elected by the legal voters of Kansas, but was 
forced upon them by non-residents, in violation of the 
organic act of the Territory, and having thus usurped 
legislative power, it enacted cruel and oppressive laws : 
Therefore, 

“ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
all rules or regulations, purporting to be laws, or in the 
form of law T , adopted at Shawnee Mission, in the Territo¬ 
ry of Kansas, by a body of men claiming to be the Legis¬ 
lative Assembly of-said Territory, and all acts and pro¬ 
ceedings whatsoever of said Assembly, are hereby de¬ 
clare,, invalid, and of no binding force or effect.” 

For both reasons, the law calling the Convention 
teas void. But even that laio was never complied 
with. 

3. The census and registry were never made asi 
required. 

The law under which the delegates to the Le¬ 
compton Convention claimed their election, passetj 


i 



4 


by this unauthorized and illegal Legislature, is 
said to be “ a fair law.” It required a census to 
be taken, and a registry of all the legal voters in the 
Territory to be made before that election; the 
list of voters to be carefully corrected by the 
probate judges ; one copy of such corrected lists 
to be filed with the Governor, another with the 
Secretary, and copies of the voters in each elec¬ 
tion district to be printed, and generally distrib¬ 
uted among the inhabitants; one copy to be 
delivered to each judge of elections, and three 
copies to be posted up at each place of voting. 
And no person was to be permitted to vote whose 
name did not appear on such corrected lists. After 
the census and registry were IC completed ’,” and not 
before, an apportionment of the delegates to be 
elected was to be made by the Governor and 
Secretary, “ by dividing the whole number of legal 
voters in the Territory by sixty.” 

No such census and registry were ever made 
and u completed ;” and consequently no apportion¬ 
ment of delegates could legally be made under 
the law. 

4. The census and registry never being u com¬ 
pleted,” the apportionment was made in violation 
of law, and the Convention tvas illegally constituted , 
even if the law had been valid. 

By a. copy of an extract from a Kansas news¬ 
paper, directed to be obtained by a majority of 
the select committee, (the only evidence given 
of. the census and registry required by the law,) 
it appears a census was made in fourteen coun¬ 
ties, and a registry in eighteen counties. There 
being thirty-eight counties in Kansas, this left 
twenty-four counties in which no census was ta¬ 
ken, and twenty counties in which no registry 
was made. (Often called nineteen, but in fact 
twenty, as now appears.) These twenty counties 
were wholly deprived of delegates or representation , 
and no one residing in them could vote. 

The Pro-Slavery party had the whole machin¬ 
ery of the Territorial Government in their hands; 
and it was their duty to see this law faithfully 
executed. They did not do this. The registry 
was unfairly made, as far as it went. Non-resi¬ 
dents were registered in all the border counties, 
and the Free-State voters, to a large extent, were 
designedly omitted. In the eleventh and eigh¬ 
teenth districts, some counties were registered, 
and others omitted. The counties in which the 
Pro-Slavery party claimed majorities were regis¬ 
tered, and the others omitted. This was as un¬ 
fair, and as much a violation of the law, as it 
would have been to register one party, and omit 
the other; indeed, that was done in effect. All 
the border counties, where colonizations and 
frauds could be practiced, and where the Pro- 
Slavery party were strongest, were registered; 
and those where the Free-State party were strong¬ 
est, wei’e omitted. 

Governor Stanton said, in a recent speech, that 
he was “ satisfied the officers did not perform 
their duty even in the eighteen counties in which 
an imperfect registry was obtained;” that, in 
some instances, he knew they did not do their 
duty. And he said, he knew the officers refused to 
take the census , or make the registry , as required, in 
some instances; and that, if he had then known 


the facts since ascertained, he would not have 
made the apportionment. And he certainly ought 
not to have done so. The registry was fraudu¬ 
lent as far as it went, and it never was “ comple¬ 
ted .” The apportionment and election under it 
were in direct violation of the very law ordering 
the election, and in violation of the rights of 
every legal voter who was disfranchised by this 
law, and the- manner in which it was fraudu¬ 
lently executed. The law was thus made a means 
and an instrument of fraud ! 

No one denies that these twenty counties, by 
the fault of the Pro-Slavery officers of the Terri¬ 
tory, were deprived of the right to vote and to 
be represented. But, again, it is said not to be 
material , as Calhoun says there were not many 
voters! Even the committee of fifteen agreed 
that his statements were no evidence, and much 
less could his opinions be. But who knows how 
many voters there were in these twenty counties, 
settled as rapidly as Kansas had been ? No one; 
no reliable estimate could be made, even by an 
honest man. That was one reason why a registry 
was required. The law required a registry of all r 
the legal voters. These partisan officers could 
not deprive a single county of the right to vote, 
and of representation, but by a direct violation 
of the law. But the pretence that there were 
but a few voters in these counties is untrue in 
fact. Governor Walker states that fifteen of these 
counties, “ in which there was no registry, gave 
a much larger vote at the October election, even 
with the six-months qualification, than the whole 
vote given to the delegates who signed the Le- 
compton Constitution.” It cannot be known how 
many more there were who did not vote. More 
than half the counties were deprived of repre¬ 
sentation, and nearly half the legal voters of 
their right to vote—taking into account the 
many omitted in the eighteen registered counties, 
and the total omission of all in the remaining 
twenty counties. Had these counties been repre¬ 
sented, it would have controlled the result, not 
only as to submitting the Constitution to a vote, 
but as to what it should be ; for so well did the 
delegates understand the farce they enacted, and 
how much their proceedings outraged public sen¬ 
timent, that only a bare majority attended. The 
Constitution was adopted by less than a majority 
of the Convention, and the refusal to submit it 
was decided by a majority of only two of those 
attending. 

It is said the people prevented a registry from 
being taken. This is not shown. The majority 
refuse proof, and then resort to such allegations! 
It would have been disproved, had evidence been 
taken. The Pro-Slavery party had the power in 
their hands: three thousand United States troops, 
“ dragoons and a battery!” This law did not af¬ 
fect the persons or property of the people. Their 
names only were required. In every settlement, 
they could have been readily obtained. The law 
allowed an officer for each precinct. It might 
as well be objected, that the census could only 
be taken in half the States, because some maid¬ 
en lady in one of them refused to give her age, 
(which her next-door neighbor would readily 
have done;) after which, all further efforts were 




5 


abandoned. Those refusing, if any, were liable 
to penalties; those not refusing, had a right to 
be registered. Did each voter in twenty coun¬ 
ties refuse? No opportunity was given ! It was 
not pretended to be taken. It was not intended 
to be taken. This was only another fraud. And 
this silly pretence shows there is no answer to 
be made to it. 

A copy of the census registry and apportion¬ 
ment, as it now appears, is annexed : 

Counties. D 
Doniphan - - 
Brown - - - 
Nemaha - - 
Atchison - - 
Leavenworth 
Jefferson - - 
Calhoun - - 
Marshall - - 
* Riley - - - 

Pottawatomie 
Johnson - - 
Douglas - - 
Shawnee - - 

Richardson - 
Davis 

Lykens - - 
Franklin - - 
Four counties 
Two counties 
Linn - - - 
One county - 
Bourt on - - 

McGee - - 
Allen - - - 
Dorn • - - 
Five counties 


23149 


9.251 


GO 


Four counties were wholly omitted in the fore¬ 
going list. There are thirty-eight counties in 
all. Thirty-six counties are named in the Con¬ 
stitution. It then gives one Senator and one 
Representative to the country lying west of Wise, 
Butler, Davis, and Hunter, not naming the coun¬ 
ties. There are two counties west of these, Ar- 
rapahoe being one. 

VI.—POPULATION INSUFFICIENT. 

In fourteen counties where the census was 
taken, there were twenty-three thousand one 
hundred and forty-nine inhabitants. To these 
counties, fifty of the sixty delegates were given. 
At the same rate as to voters, the population in 
the other four registered counties would be four 
thousand six hundred and twenty-nine—making 
a total in the eighteen counties of twenty-seven 
thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight—not 
one-third enough for a single Representative, 
which requires about ninety-three thousand five 
hundred. If the twenty counties not registered 
contain only some three thousand inhabitants, 
as our opponents assert, Kansas has only one- 
third the population required for her admission 
as a State. And that is a good objection. If 
these twenty counties have twenty thousand in¬ 
habitants, the number is still too small for ad¬ 
mission, while it is so large as to destroy all pre¬ 
tence of fairness in the election of delegates to 
the Lecompton Convention. The fraud would 
vitiate the proceedings. And in any view, the 
number is not much more than half enough. The 
time has not arrived for the people to determine 
their own institutions for themselves, according 
to the Democratic creed. The best information 


ids. 

Population 

VoUrs. Delegates 

1 

4,120 

1.085 

7 

2 

512 

if*} 

2 

3 

2 607 

840 

5 

4 

5.529 

1.837 

12 

5 

No returns. 

555 

4 

6 

885 

291 

2 

7 

415 

2U6 

1 

8 

No returns. 

353 

4 

No returns. 

205 

4 

9 

690 

496 

3 

10 

3,727 

No returns. 

1.3 8 

283 

S 

11 

No returns. 

No returns 

► 2 


1 Nr returns. 

No re'urns. 


1*2 

821 

413 

3 

>3 

No returns. 

No returns. 

0 

14 

No returns. 

No returns. 

0 

15 

No returns. 

No returns. 

0 

16 

821 

415 

3 

17 

No returns. 

No returns. 

* 

0 

18 

2,622 

615 

■ 4 


No returns. 

No returns., 


19 

No returns. 

No returns. 

0 


to be obtained, makes the population about 
45,000 ! 

VII.—PLEDGES. 

In 1820, the Missouri compromise line was es¬ 
tablished by Southern votes, and Kansas and all 
the other territory acquired of France north of 
that line was pledged to Freedom, and Slavery 
therein “ forever prohibited.” 

This, like all efforts to admit slave States, was 
a political question, to increase and extend the un¬ 
equal political power given to the owners of slave 
property, by the admission of new slave States, 
with their Senators and Representatives in Con¬ 
gress. The effort to make Kansas a slave State 
has the same object in view. The slave States 
have about six millions of free people—the free 
States about thirteen millions. Yet the slave 
States have already more than four times the 
extent of territory admitted as new States, in 
proportion to their population, that the free States 
have. The slave-owners numbered, in 1850, less 
than three hundred and forty-seven thousand ; 
yet they are counted, in representation, at be¬ 
tween two and three millions ; and they have, 
by this unequal power, controlled the Government 
for the last sixty years. They wish to make this 
inequality still greater, and to make their power 
absolute. Nine new slave States have been 
added, with eighteen Senators and forty-eight 
Representatives in Congress. And this unequal 
power is held by them all. New free States have 
not been added in the same proportion. Accord¬ 
ing to population, the additions made to Slavery are 
more than four times what has been allowed to the 
free States. But all this does not satisfy the slave 
power! 

Hence, when Kansas was to be settled, they 
made their arrangements to reduce that to Sla¬ 
very. To do this, the Missouri prohibition was 
repealed, in 1854, against the uniform action of 
the Government since the day of its establish¬ 
ment, upon the plea that it was unconstitutional, 
that Congress had no power to legislate upon the 
subject of Slavery, and the great principle that it 
belonged to the people was adopted. To extend 
Slavery into free territory, the compromise of 
1820 and the finality of 1850 shared the same 
fate ; the Slavery question was reopened and re¬ 
newed ; it was unsettled where it had been set¬ 
tled, and the struggle transferred to the people 
of the Territory, to be again settled by them. 
They have again settled it, but their decision is 
now disregarded! By the terms of that act, 
Congress and the Government were bound not to 
interfere, btit to leave the people “ perfectly free” 
to settle that question for themselves in their 
own way. The Democratic party declared that 
as their party creed in their Cincinnati platform. 
The President endorsed it. He got upon it so 
emphatically, he thought he was a part of it, and, 
in his inaugural, approved of the conception of 
Congress in applying the rule “ that the will of 
the majority shall govern in the settlement of 
the question of domestic Slavery in the Territo¬ 
ries,” and said “ it was the imperative and indis¬ 
pensable duty of the Government of the United 
States to secure to every resident inhabitant the 
free and independent expression of his opinion 








6 


by his vote. This sacred right of each individual 
must be preserved. 11 How was this sacred right of 
each individual preserved at the election for dele¬ 
gates ? 

In his instructions to Governor Walker, he 
said: 

“ The institutions of Kansas should be established by 
the v^les of the people of Kansas, unawed and uninter¬ 
rupted by force or fraud.” 

And further, that 

“When such a Constitution shall be submitted to the 
people of the Territory, they must be protected in the exer 
cise of their right's to vote for or against the instrument. And 
the fair expression of the popular will must not be inter¬ 
rupted by fraud or violence.” 

And in his letter to the Connecticut clergymen, 
he said : 

“ It is my imperative duly to employ the troops of the 
United States, should this become necessary, in defend¬ 
ing the Convention against violence while framing the 
Constitution, and in protecting the bona fide inhabitants 
qualified to vote, under the provisions of this instrument, 
m the Jtee exercise of the rights of suffrage, when it shall be 
submitted to them for approbation or rejection .” 

This was on the 15th August last. Up to that 
time, it was not only their right to vote upon the 
Constitution, but it was his imperative duty to 
protect them in the exercise of that right. 

Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton, in 
their published letters and speeches, state that 
they pledged their honor and character to the 
people of Kansas, in every way, that the Consti¬ 
tution should be submitted to them for adoption 
or rejection, and told them they expressed the 
views of the President and the whole Cabinet. 
They spoke to them officially, as the officers of 
the President. Even the delegates to the Con¬ 
vention gave pledges to see that this was done— 
a majority of them in writing, as it is stated. One 
of them was signed by Calhoun and the seven 
other delegates from Douglas county ! 

All were pledged to this—the party, the Presi¬ 
dent, the Governor, and the Delegates—as deeply 
as men could be ; yet all these pledges have been 
deliberately and w r antonly violated by this Ad¬ 
ministration. 

VIII.—WHY THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT SUBMITTED. 

The answer is easy, why the Constitution was 
not submitted to the people ; because, if 'it had 
been, it would have been rejected by a vote of more 
than five to one. This was a matter of entire and 
absolute certainty. The refusal to submit it was 
a confession of its weakness. Speaking of the 
Free-State party, the President says : 

“They have ever refuse d to sanction or recognise anv 
other Comtitution than that framed at Topeka" Had the 
whole Lecompton Constitution been submitted to the peo¬ 
ple, the adherents of thisorganization would undoubtedly 
have voted against it.” 

But that would have been no harm, and no 
reason for refusing to submit il, even with the 
Pro-Slavery party, unless the Free-State party, 
by voting against it, could have defeated it; and 
that is conceding this to be the Constitution of 
a minority, to which the majority were known to 
be opposed. Rebellious people—preferring Free¬ 
dom to Slavery ! Why, indeed, submit it to them, 
when they were unalterably opposed to it, and 
u v r ould doubtless have voted against it? 11 
Again, the President says they refused to vote 
for delegates to the Convention, not because 


“ there was an omission to register the compara¬ 
tively few voters who were inhabitants of certain 
counties of Kansas,” “ but because they had pre¬ 
determined, at all hazards, to adhere to their 
revolutionary organization, and defeat the estab¬ 
lishment of any other Constitution than that 
they had framed at Topeka.” Disloyal subjects f 
What right had they to adhere to their own 
Constitution and their own opinions, against 
United States troops and Federal dictation— 
against a legal minoi'ity sustained by the Presi¬ 
dent ! The “ few voters of certain counties 11 
were all the voters in more than half the counties of 
the Territory , by fraud deprived of all representa¬ 
tion and of all right to vote ! Is that maintain¬ 
ing the sacred right of each individual to vote? 
And if those not voting were Free-State men, as 
the President assumes—and as is doubtless the # 
fact—they composed more than three-fourths of 
the legal voters, even in the registered counties. 
Here, those who could vote are censured for not 
voting! They expected and desired to vote upon 
the Constitution, but that is not allowed, because 
they “ would doubtless have voted against it; ’ 
and the minority had “ predetermined, at all 
hazards, to adhere to ” the Constitution they had 
framed at Lecompton ! 

The arguments used in favor of this Constitu¬ 
tion concede, or assume, that the majority of the 
people are opposed to it. The President does not 
deny this ; the majority of the committee do not 
deny it; no honest, unprejudiced man can deny 
it. Is there a member of this House who will 
rise here in his place, and say that he honestly 
believes a majority of the people of Kansas are 
in favor of this Constitution ? I ask for a reply. 
Will any one say “yes” to that inquiry? Not 
one! No one believes it; and yet you are for 
forcing it upon them against their will. Is that 
your non-intervention? Is that the “ popular sov¬ 
ereignty ”■ you promised them ? 

The argument is, one party is legal, and the 
other illegal—that is, one party has a right to 
their opinions, and the other party has not; that 
the people in fourteen States will not like it if 
Kansas is not made a slave State. Was there any 
pledge made to them, because they voted for the 
President, that Kansas should be made a slave 
State ? If not, why should they demand any in¬ 
terference by the President ? Why should he 
urge the absurdity that, after a Pro-Slavery Con¬ 
stitution, trrepealable as to Slavery, is once firmly 
fixed upon the people, they can get rid of it, and 
make it a free State much easier than they can 
before ? A proposition so repugnant to reason 
as to require no answer. Its statement is its 
refutation. Make it a slave State, beyond the 
power of change, but by revolution, in order to 
give the majority a better chance to make it a 
free State! 

IX.—REMONSTRANCE OP THE LEGISLATURE. 

The Legislature elected in October, and fairly 
representing the people of Kansas, protest 
against the Lecompton Constitution, as follows: 

“ Preamble and joint resolutions in relation to the Constitu¬ 
tion framed at Lecompton, Kansas Territory, on the 7th 

day of November, 1857. 

“ Whereas a small minority of people living in nineteen 
ofthe thirty-eight counties of this Territory, availing them- 





7 


selves of a law which enabled them to obstruct and defeat 
a lair expression of the popular will, did, by the odious 
and oppressive application ot ihe provisions and partisan 
machinery of said law, procure the. return of the whole 
number of the delegates of tiie Constitutional Convention 
recently assembled at Lecompton ; and whereas, by rea¬ 
son of the defective provisions of said law. in connection 
■with the neglect and misconduct of the authorities charged 
with the execution of the same, the people living within 
the remaining nineteen counties of the Territory were not 
permitted to return dele:; a f s to said Convention, were not 
recognised in its organization, or in any other sense heard 
or felt in its deliberations; and whereas it is an axiom 
in politcial ethics, that the people cannot he d prived of 
their rights by the negligence or misconduct of public of¬ 
ficers; and wliereasa minority—to wit: twenty -eight only 
of the sixty member? of said Convention—have attempted , 
by an unworthv contrivance, to impo e upon the whole 
people of this Territory a Constitution without ccnsultii g 
their wishes, and against their will; and whereas the 
members of said Convention nave refused to submit heir 
action for the approval or disapproval of the voters of the 
Territory, and in thus acting have tefied the known will 
of nine-tenths of the voters thereof; and whereas the ac 
tion of a fragment of said Convention, representing as 
they did a small minority of the voters of the Territory, 
repudiates and crushes out the distinctive principle of ihe 
‘ Nebraska act,’ and violates and tramples under foot the 
rights and the sovereignty of the people; and whereas, 
from the foregoing statement of facts, it clearly appears 
that the people have not been left ‘free to form and regu¬ 
late their domestic institutions in their own way,’ but, on 
the contrary, at every stage in the anomalous proceedings 
recited, they have been prevented from so doing: 

“ Be it therefore resolved by the Governor and Legislative 
Assembly of Kansas Territory , That the people of Kansas 
being opposed to said Constitution, Congress has no right¬ 
ful power under it to admit said Territory into the Union 
as a State; and the representatives of said people do here¬ 
by, in their name and on their behalf, solemnly protest 
against sudi admission. 

“ Resolved, That such action on the part of Congress 
would, in the judgment of the members of the Legislative 
Assembly, be an entire abandonment of the doctrine of 
non-intervention in the affairs of the Territory, and a sub 
stitution in its stead ol congressional intervention in be 
half of a minority engaged in a disreputable attempt to de¬ 
feat tlie will and violate the rights of the insjotiiy. 

11 Resolved, That the people of Kansas Territory claim 
the right, through a legai and fair expression of the will 
of a majority of her citizens, to form and adopt a Constitu¬ 
tion for themselves. 

“Resolved . That the Governor of this Territory be re¬ 
quested to forward a copy of the foregoing preamble and 
resolutions to the President of the United States, the Pres 
ident of the Senate, the Speaker of Jhe H< use of Rep¬ 
resentatives, and to the Delegate in Congress from the 
Territory.” 

These facts, thus authoritatively stated by the 
legal Legislature of the Territory, should be taken 
as indisputable, unless disproved by higher evi¬ 
dence, that has not been done or attempted. And 
these facts brand that Constitution as irregular 
and fraudulent, and prove that the people of Kan¬ 
sas are opposed to it. 

X.—PROTEST OP THE PEOPLE. 

The refusal to submit the Lecompton Constitu¬ 
tion to the people, for their adoption or rejection, 
in violation of the organic act, of the general un¬ 
derstanding, and of all tiie promises that had been 
made, created such a feeling of just indignation, 
that acting Governor Stanton, in order to preserve 
•tiie public peace, judged it advisable to convene 
the Legislature to take such action as might be 
deemed proper to prevent the attempted fraud 
from being consummated, showing that he at 
least intended to fulfil the promises he had made. 
For his integrity in this respect, he deserves the 
thanks of all good men. 

In his message he advised against repealing the 
law calling the Convention or interfering with its 
action, recommending simply the passage of a 


law submitting the Constitution to a fair vote, 
and expressing his confident beliefthat, if adopted, 
Kansas would be peaceably admitted under it; 
and if rejected, that Congress never would vio¬ 
late the rights of the people by forcing a Consti¬ 
tution upon them against their will, fairly ex¬ 
pressed. The Legislature met, and passed an act 
in accordance with this recommendation, on the 
17th December, 1857, submitting the Constitution 
fairly to the people, at an election to be held on 
the 4th of January last. On that day an election 
was held under the law, and according to law; 
and the vote stood, for the Constitution, 162 ; 
against it, 10,226—being tbe largest vote ever 
polled at any election in Kansas, and the last 
election held, and the question being directly 
upon the Lecompton Constitution. The election 
was fairly and peaceably conducted, and this 
vote stands of record as the actual and legal ex¬ 
pression of the will of the people of Kansas 
against this Constitution; rejecting it not only 
by a majority, but by a vote almost unanimous. 
The people have decided, and rejected the Lecomp¬ 
ton Constitution. 

The election was recognised and approved by 
the Administration before it was held, and Gov¬ 
ernor Denver was directed to see it properly con¬ 
ducted, “without interruption.” And he did so. 
The election was fairly and peaceably conducted. 

Secretary Cass, in his instructions dated 11th 
December, 1857, says: 

“The Territorial Legislature doubtless convened on 
the 7th instant, and while it remains in session its mem¬ 
bers are entitled to be secure and free in their delibera¬ 
tions. Its rightful action must also be respected. Should i 
authorize an election by the people, for any purpose, this 
election Should be held without interruption, no less than 
those authorized by the Convention. While ihe ptace o 
the Territory is preserved, and the freedom of elections is 
secured, there need be no rear of disastrous consequences.’, 

Why should not the decision of the people of 
Kansas be respected? It is their right to make 
their own Constitution; they are to lire under 
it, and be governed by it. And that right was 
guarantied to them by the organic act. But be¬ 
cause the decision was in favor of Freedom, and 
against Slavery, the Administration now disre¬ 
gards this election. The President objects : First, 
that he has had no “official information” of the 
result. Second , that, after the doings of the Con¬ 
vention, the Legislature had no power to order 
the election. 

1. As to notice. The President, upon the prin¬ 
ciples of special pleading adopted in the mes¬ 
sage, does not deny information, but admits it; 
his denial is, that it has not been officially com¬ 
municated. If it has not, it is the fault of the 
President’s friends, who give or withhold “ offi¬ 
cial information,” just as he wills and directs. 
Calhoun, President of the bogus Convention, has 
long been here. Why is official information im¬ 
properly withheld? Are the fraudulent returns 
-till incomplete, or secreted in so many places he 
has as yet been unable to gather them together? 
But we have an official report—admitted, too, by 
the select committee to be correct—showing the 
result to be — for this Constitution, 162 votes! 
against it, 10,226 votes !! ! It is said, if all the 
returns had been made, the majority against the 






8 


Constitution would have been over tivelvc thou¬ 
sand !!! 

2. ,4s to the validity of the election. The act of 
the Legislature calling the Convention did not 
require the Constitution to be submitted to the 
people. Governor Geary vetoed it for this rea¬ 
son, and the bogus Legislature passed it, by a 
two-thirds vote, over his veto. Was the fraud, 
since attempted, then designed? 

All concede that the Legislature could then 
have required its submission! But no one con¬ 
tends it could have dictated the form of the Con¬ 
stitution. Why this difference? The right to 
form the Constitution was delegated to the Con¬ 
vention ; the right to pass upon it belonged to 
the people. The delegates could not ratify their 
own acts. The act of the Legislature (and the 
President says it was an act of usurpation) only 
authorized them to form a Constitution. That 
was all the authority the Convention had. It 
had no legislative powers. The Legislature 
could not be affected by it — that remained the 
same, until Kansas was admitted as a State, as if 
no Convention had been called. Yet the Con¬ 
vention assumed legislative power, and provided 
that all laws not repugnant to their Constitution 
should not be altered, amended, or repealed, 
(they omitted to provide against the passage of 
a new law,) until after the Constitution was 
adopted ; and that all civil and military officers 
should hold their offices until after that time. 
The Convention met in September, and adjourned 
over until after the October election, to know 
what kind of a Legislature might be elected; 
and with all the frauds practiced, it was against 
the Pro-Slavery party. Then they legislated 
their laivs to stand and their officers to hold over, 
in the Convention. In effect, the Convention 
abolished the Governor and Legislature , without 
a pretence of authority to do anything of the 
kind. Until it is admitted as a State, Kansas 
must remain a Territory. The President calls it 
a Territory, and keeps the Territorial officers 
there. And the Governor and Legislature hold 
their offices until others are commissioned to act. 
No caucus or convention could deprive them of 
their offices or impair their authority. 

This Convention also displaced the legal offi¬ 
cers and judges of election, and appointed John 
Calhoun to a dictatorship, with full power to fill 
these places with his own corrupt tools and 
agents, acting under no legal responsibility or 
sanction whatever, for the Convention could 
not impose any, to conduct an election for the 
pretended submission, and for State officers 
under this Constitution, so as to declare their 
friends elected, let the result be as it might! 
This election was to be held on the 21st De¬ 
cember. 

Before that time, and before the Constitution 
was pretended to be in existence for any purpose, 
the Legislature provided by law for its submission 
to a fair vote of the people. 

On the 8th of December the President said, in 
Iiis annual message: 

“Whether Kansas shall be a free or slave State must 
eventually, under some authority, be decided by an elec- 
. lion.” 


On that very same day, Gov. Stanton convened 
the Legislature of Kansas to provide for such an 
election. On the l?th of December, the law was 
passed, and under it the question has been de¬ 
cided “ by an election ! ” 

The President also said : 

“The truth is, that no other authentic and satisfactory 
mode exists of ascertaining the will of a majority ot the 
people of a State or Territory, on an important and exciting 
question, like Slavery in Kansas, except by leaving it to 
a direct vote.” 

Here that authentic and satisfactory mode has 
been adopted, and the will of the majority has 
been ascertained “ by a direct vote ! ” 

Had the Legislature calling the Convention 
enacted it might put the Constitution into ope¬ 
ration without submitting it to the people, its 
authority to do so would have depended entirely 
upon that act of the Legislature ; and that act, 
like any other law, might have been changed or 
repealed, or a submission required a* any time 
before the Constitution had been put into opera¬ 
tion under it; and no State Constitution could 
be put into operation until Congress admitted 
the Territory as a State. Attempting to do this, 
is called rebellion! And where there was a 
general dissatisfaction expressed, the Legislature 
should require it to be submitted to a vote, as 
they did. A mere law may be changed by the 
same power that can enact it. A further law may 
also be enacted. 

When it is admitted the power belonged to the 
Legislature, and that it might have directed a 
submission before the Convention met, it may 
not be denied the same power still remained, and 
a submission could just a3 legally be directed 
afterwards as before ; and this provision, after¬ 
wards made, would be as legal as if embraced 
in the original act. This power had not been 
surrendered. The Legislature could not lose it, 
or the Convention acquire it, by implication. 
The law for tfe submission is as valid as the 
law for the Conwtntion; one rests on the same 
authority as thetother, and must have the same 
force and effect- The law ordering the election 
was therefore legal and valid, and the decision 
of the people under it final and conclusive! 

3. As to the effect of this election. The past and 
the present Administrations have constantly 
urged the people of Kansas to settle all their dif¬ 
ficulties peaceably at their elections. Yet the 
President now refuses to recognise that fair and 
peaceable mode of settlement. The professions 
and practice are in conflict. At one time, when 
the Legislature was elected, an armed invasion 
interferes and prevents a fair election ; at another, 
they are required to vote viva voce , so that frauds 
may be practiced to any necessary extent. And, 
by the President’s officials, the people in twenty 
counties are disfranchised and denied the right 
to vote. All these fraudulent proceedings are 
recognised, and these are all held to be valid 
elections. But when a fair election has been 
held, the President will not hear the result, or 
recognise its force when heard ! 

He says a submission to the people is correct 
in principle, and he trusts will be adopted “ on 
all future occasions.” Why apply this correct 
principle to future occasions only? No case can 















9 


ever arise where a greater necessity for it will 
exist. In this case, it was made indispensable 
by the organic act. 

It is not only correct in principle, but it is uni¬ 
versal in practice. There is not an existing State 
Constitution in the Union that has not, in some 
way, been sanctioned by a vote of the people 
governed by it. Why should Kansas be made 
an exception ? 

Whether the law for this election was valid, 
as the people all believed, or invalid, as is now 
pretended, is, in truth, wholly immaterial, so 
long as the election was fairly held, and the will 
of the majority fairly expressed. No legal ob¬ 
jection or legal quibble can change or alter the 
great fact that the people of Kansas, not only a 
majority, but the whole people, with almost one 
unanimous voice, have repudiated, rejected, and 
condemned this Constitution. That no man may 
deny or dispute. The assent of the people is as 
necessary as the assent of Congress to this in¬ 
strument ; indeed, more so ; for they are to live 
under it, and be governed by it. Congress can¬ 
not rightfully force a State into the Union 
against their will, and under a Constitution re¬ 
jected by them. This would be an arbitrary and 
unconstitutional exercise of power. A Govern¬ 
ment thus imposed upon the people would not 
be republican, either in form or in fact. 

Had the people of Kansas all signed a remon¬ 
strance against thi3 Constitution, and sent it 
here, would it be any answer to say no law had 
been passed authorizing them to protest against 
it in this manner? The fact is the same, wheth¬ 
er their wishes are or are not expressed under 
color of law. The voluntary expression of pub¬ 
lic sentiment is the same as if it was done under 
the forms of law. And here the fact cannot be 
denied, the people are opposed to this Consti¬ 
tution. 

XI.-VOTE ON THE STATE OFFICERS ON THE FOURTH 

OF JANUARY. 

According to the official certificate of Gov. 
Denver and the presiding officers of the Legisla¬ 
ture, who were present at the canvass, the Free- 
State officers and member of Congress were all 
elected, the lowest majority being over three 
hundred. To the Senate, thirteen Free-State 
and six Pro-Slavery members, were elected; and 
to the House, twenty-nine Free-State and fifteen 
Pro-Slavery members were elected. Mr. Cal¬ 
houn, however, who does the heavy work in this 
Kansas business, has never declared the result, 
either as to the State officers or members of the 
Legislature. It is said he stated freely, in Mis¬ 
souri, that the entire Pro-Slavery State ticket 
was elected, and also the Pro-Slavery member 
of Congress, and that the Pro-Slavery party had 
a majority in both branches of the Legislature. 
And this, no doubt, will be the declared result, 
contrary to the true vote, as certified by Gov¬ 
ernor Denver If intended to be made other¬ 
wise, it would have been actually settled long 
ago, and been used as an argument in favor of 
the expediency of accepting the Lecompton Con¬ 
stitution. Withholding these election returns, 
and refusing to declare the result, with the 
knowledge, and, as it must be presumed, the ap¬ 


proval of the Administration, is one of the many 
things that mark the true character of this Le¬ 
compton fraud. But the secret is out at last: 
Calhoun, in his statement to Senator Green, says 
the whole Free-State vote at this election was 
seven thousand and fifty-nine, of which six hun¬ 
dred and thirty-one were “ illegally cast,” and 
that the legal Pro-Slavery vote was six thousand 
five hundred and eighty-one. Deducting the six 
hundred and thirty-one votes which he declares 
illegal, and the Pro-Slavery party have a major¬ 
ity of one hundred and fifty-three ! 

XII.—DELAWARE CROSSING. 

On the 4th of January, the Free-State officers 
were elected, as I have stated, by about three 
hundred majority. This majority it was neces¬ 
sary to overcome, and to change the Legislature 
by having a majority in Leavenworth county.. 
Enough votes to do this were fraudulently re¬ 
turned from Delaware Crossing, namely, three 
hundred and seventy-nine—every vote Pro Sla¬ 
very ! 

It has since been established ; and Isaac 
Munday, one °f judges election at 

that precinct, testified—that only forty-three votes 
were polled at that place ; that the returns had 
been taken off, a forged return of three hundred 
and seventy-nine votes added, and the certificate 
of the judges attached ; that the true returns 
were given to Henderson, to carry to Calhoun, 
before this forged vote was added. Calhoun de¬ 
nies receiving them, but the forged returns are 
found secreted on his premises. In this transac¬ 
tion Calhoun , his chief clerk, McLane , his broth¬ 
er-in-law, Diffendorf and Henderson , one or all, 
appear to be implicated, and their testimony and 
statements do not agree. This appears to be a 
sore place ; and Mr. Calhoun was forced to come 
out in the newspapers, with a story, that he, 
poor soul, was imposed upon ! The proof of the 
fraud could not be disputed ; and Calhoun said 
if Governor Denver would take the testimony of 
the judges of the election, he would count out this 
fraudulent and forged vote. Munday, on his way 
to give his evidence, was shot. The dead tell no 
tales. His testimony was never taken again, as 
Calhoun required. He exposed the crime. Who 
were the criminals? The Pro-Slavery men say 
Munday shot himself, or was murdered by some 
Free-State man ! How improbable ! He had 
no reason for suicide ; he had concluded to serve 
God, and let Slavery alone. 

Who had anything to fear from Munday’s evi¬ 
dence! What party might lose ? What men be 
exposed by it? Who could have any motive of 
fear or of revenge, to prompt them on to such a 
deed? Those who had been guilty of forgery or 
perjury , or both, in regard to this transaction ! If 
he was murdered, it was not by Free-State men;. 
they were glad to have him tell the truth ; they 
wanted his evidence ! It was done by some fiend 
of the Pro-Slavery faction, from fear, or for re¬ 
venge—another crime in the effort to make Kan¬ 
sas a slave State. 

XIII.—VOTING BY FREE-STATE MEN. 

That part of the Free-State party that voted 
for State officers on the 4th of January (about 
half the Free-State men refused to vote) have 






10 


been claimed as endorsing and - assenting to the 
Lecompton Constitution. This is an error. They 
voted to take from their enemies, in any contin¬ 
gency, all pretence of authority ; and they voted 
protesting against the Lecompton Constitution. 
The Convention nominating the Free-State offi¬ 
cers unanimously > 

'• Resolved, That the candidate nominated by this Con¬ 
vention, on accepting this nomination, will be considered 
as pledged, should the Constitution lie approved by Con¬ 
gress, to adopt and execute immediate measures for 
enabling ihe people, through a new Constitutional Con¬ 
vention, to ob am such a Constitution as the majority 
may approve.” 

And the Free-State officers elected (but who 
have not been, and will not be, declared elected) 
have sent to Congress their protest against ad¬ 
mission under it, reciting how it was made, and 
concluding as follows : 

“ In view of these facts—that the Lecompton Constitu¬ 
tion was framed by a bare majority of a Convention, elect¬ 
ed by a small minority of the people of Kansas, and that 
the Convention refused to submit the Constitution thus 
framed to a fair vote of the people, for their ratification or 
rejection, and that the Territorial Legislature did provide 
by law for its submission, under which law it was sub¬ 
mitted and rejected by an overwhelming majority of the 
people ; and for the sake of harmony and the integrity of the 
Union, we, the officers elected under said Constitution, do 
most respectfully and earnestly pray your honorable 
bodies not to admit Kansas into the Union under said Con¬ 
stitution, and thus force upon our people an organic law 
against th‘ ir express will, and in violation of every prin¬ 
ciple of popular government. 

“ Cf. VV. SMI TH, Governor elect. 

W. M. ROBERTS, Lieutenant Governor elect. 

ANDRE 'V J. MEADE, State Treasurer elect. 

J K. GOODIN, Auditor of State elects 

These facts are stated by responsible men. 
They are true, and can be proved; and they are 
undisputed. 

XIV.-SUBMISSION ON TWENTY-FIRST DECEMBER. 

The pretended submission, on the 21st Decem¬ 
ber, of the Constitution, was a most shameless 
fraud. To submit a Constitution to the people, 
allowing them to vote for it, but not to vote 
against it, was no submission. It was a confes¬ 
sion that it ought to be submitted, but a refusal 
to submit it. 

The President says the Convention “did not 
think proper to submit the whole of this Consti¬ 
tution to a popular vote but they did submit the 
question whether Kansas should be a free or a 
slave State to the people.” And he afterwards 
says that this election presented “ a fair opportu¬ 
nity' 1 ’ to decide the question of Slavery. It is 
true, the votes were to be labelled “ Constitution 
with Slavery ” and “ Constitution with no Slave¬ 
ry ; ” but it is equally true, that the Constitutions, 
in both cases, established and perpetuated Slavery ; 
the one with no Slavery being made unalterable 
and irrepealahle , and in that respect even worse 
than the other, which did allow slaves to be 
emancipated upon certain terms! The President 
says that “ Kansas is as much a slave State as 
Georgia or South Carolina;-” and,therefore,that 
“ Slavery can never be prohibited in Kansas, ex¬ 
cept by means of a constitutional provision.” 
The Constitution with no Slavery declared “ that 
the right of property in slaves now in the Territory 
shall in no manner be interfered with.” If it is now 
a slave State, and the right of property in slaves 
and their increase cannot be interfered with, it 
must remain so. instead of a prohibition of 


Slavery, here is a constitutional sanction. It 
also declared, in relation to amendments, that 
“ no alteration shall be made to affect ihe rights of 
property in ihe ownership of slaves.” 

The other Constitution was one undisguisedly 
establishing Slavery, and prohibiting its repeal, 
but allowing slaves, upon certain terms, to be 
emancipated. Here was a double fraud. First, 
the votes must be for the Constitution , and could 
not be against it. Next, the votes must be for 
Slavery , and could not be against it. If they 
voted for the “Constitution with no Slavery,” 
that established Slavery , and made it perpetual! 
What a “fair opportunity” was here presented ! 
A fair opportunity to establish Slavery! and to 
provide that it should never be abolished! and no 
opportunity to vote against it in any way. “Heads 
I win, tails you lose”— what a fair opportunity! 
The President regrets the poople neglected to 
improve it. It was an insulting fraud, that a 
blackleg would have the grace to disown. 

XV.—VOTE ON THE TWENTY-FIRST DECEMBER. 


According to the official certificate of Govern¬ 
or Denver and the presiding officers of the Leg¬ 
islature, the whole vote was six thousand seven 
hundred and twelve for the Constitution at this 
election. They were present at the canvass on 
the 14th of January. According to Calhoun, it 
is now six thousand seven hundred and ninety- 
five. When or how the eighty-three votes were 
added is not explained ! This vote, as reported 
and counted, was to a great extent fraudulent. 

The following is a comparison of the reported 
vote of four precincts, with the actual vote, as 
proved by the judges and clerks of the elections, 
before the investigating committee of the Terri¬ 
torial Legislature: 

Reported. Actual. 


Oxford 
Shawnee - 
Fori Scoll - 
Kiekapoo - 


1.2126 
753 
3-29 
1,017 


42 

115 

150 

385 


Total 


3,347 692 


Here are frauds at four precincts of uearly 
three thousand of the six thousand votes re¬ 
turned. But this is denied, and proof withheld ! 

The officers of the Legislature say : 

Taking into view oilier but less important irauds, we 
feel safe in saying, that of the whole vot- polled, not over 
two thousand were legal voles, polled b> citizens of the 
Tt rritory.” 

The real vote at this election was, in fact, 
about the same as at the election for delegates ; 
that is, the actual strength of the factious Pro- 
Slavery minority, according to the best and most 
reliable evidence to be obtained—namely, about 
two thousand. 

At the election on the 4th of January, when a 
fair vote either way was allowed, there was from 
ten to twelve thousand majority against this 
Constitution. At the election on the 21st of De¬ 
cember, the real vote was about two thousand in 
its favor. But at this election no one could vote 
against it! 

XVI.—AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION. 

The President insists that the majority, if they 
are for a Free State, (as he seems to assume,) 
can amend this Constitution at pleasure, after it 
is adopted ; and says : 





11 


‘■The will of the majority is supreme and irresistible, 
when expressed in an orderly and lawful manner. They 
can make and unmake Constitutions at pleasure. It 
would be absurd to say th~ t they can impose fetters upon 
their own power which they cannot afterwards remove. 
If they could do this, they might tie their own hauds for a 
hundred as well as for ten years.” 

His position is, that the proceedings to make a 
Constitution are irrepealable, and the question 
ot its adoption cannot even be submitted to the 
people ; but when once firmly fixed upon them, 
the will of the majority is supreme and irresist¬ 
ible. '1 he very reverse is the fact. Before they 
are admitted under it, the will of the majority is 
fettered by no conditions, and should be supreme 
and irresistible. After it is adopted, it can only 
be amended in a legal manner, according to its 
provisions, and Slavery could never be prohibited! 

Can a majority of the people, or even of the 
States, amend the Constitution of the United 
States, in violation of its provisions? If so, the 
clause allowing a representation upon property 
to a small class of citizens, against the equal 
rights of all other citizens, might be amended, 
and in that way Slavery might be disconnected 
from politics and from Congress, and from all 
questions as to the political power or the politi¬ 
cal ascendency of a privileged class. It would 
then cease to be political, and, like all other 
property interests, become a matter of pecuniary 
importance only. No longer an element of po¬ 
litical power, it would cease to be a theme of 
discord and strife. That would place all the 
citizens of all the States upon a real and just 
equality, and establish an unbroken peace upon 
the subject of Slavery. Can the provision allow¬ 
ing two Senators to each Slate , which is not amend¬ 
able, be changed ? If not , can Slavery be abolished 
against the express terms of this Constitution ? 

The President promised the people of Kansas, 
through the Governor he appointed for them, 
that the Constitution should be submitted to the 
people, for them to adopt or reject. That prom¬ 
ise has been violated. Now he expresses an 
opinion, that if the Constitution establishing Sla¬ 
very is adopted, it can be easily amended and 
made a Free-State Constitution ! The opinion is 
more worthless than the promise; for if, in this 
instance, he should maintain his integrity, he 
cannot decide this question—that will come be¬ 
fore the Pro-Slavery judges of Kansas, subject to 
an appeal to the Pro-Slavery judges of the Su¬ 
preme Court. The Kansas judges are the same 
who directed indictment against citizens of Kan¬ 
sas for their political opinions. The supremei 
judges are the same who recently, in an opinion— 
not a decision—(the Dred Scott case) usurped 
legislative powers beyond those admitted to be¬ 
long to Congress, and by a kind of judicial usurp¬ 
ation, and judicial enactment, attempted to ex¬ 
tend Slavery beyond the limits of the States 
where it existed, into all the Territories of the 
United States. And this the President recog¬ 
nises as law, when these judges had no more 
authority to extend Slavery beyond the limits of 
the States where it was upheld by local law, than 
so many other persons who never had been 
judges. Both courts are intensely Pro-Slavery, 
and, judging the future by the past, ready to do 


anything for Slavery that party necessities may 
require. These courts would say the Constitu¬ 
tion, if once adopted, could only be amended in 
a legal way, and according to its provisions, and 
not at all as to Slavery, which is made irrqjeal- 
able. Nor could any act of Congress change this, 
as has been suggested. Congress can only admit, 
or refuse to admit, the State under the Consti¬ 
tution. The people of Kansas, up to this time, 
have been unable to get rid of the illegal legis¬ 
lation of 1855. And they never could change 
this Pro-Slavery Constitution, if it should be 
adopted, short of revolution. 

XVII.—EQUAL RIGHTS. 

The rulers of this Government, the privileged 
political class, who represent Slavery, say they 
must have equal rights in the Union, or they will 
go out of it. It is just and right that the people 
of different States and different sections, of dif¬ 
ferent occupations and pursuits, should have 
equal political rights , and, in proportion to their 
numbers, equal political power. We all agree in 
this great principle, upon which alone a repre¬ 
sentative Government can rest. If those who 
complain are denied this, I will aid them to ob¬ 
tain it by a change of policy, or of the Constitu¬ 
tion itself. Will they do the same? Will they 
consent to stand upon a real and true equality? 
If so, we have only to examine fairly what sec¬ 
tion, or class of States, or individuals, have had 
more than their equal share of political power , 
and correct it. This question of Slavery has been 
made, and is, a question of political power. So 
says Senator Mason ; so says the gentleman from 
Mississippi, [Mr. Davis,] and I admit it. It is 
this that brings it here; it is this that gives to it 
its bitterness ; and, as they say, endangers the 
Union. IIow stands the account? Who holds 
the power of this Government in their hands? 
Who have held it in their hands for the last sixty 
years ? Is it the Representatives of all the peo¬ 
ple of all the States equally ? Have the Repre¬ 
sentatives of the free States had it in their con¬ 
trol? No man can say so truly. History records 
the fact that the owners of slave property, small 
in number, control this Government, and have, 
for the last sixty years. So said Mr. Meade in 
1848; so said Mr. Clay in 1850 ; and so says Mr. 
Hammond in 1858; and the records of the'Gov¬ 
ernment prove it beyond dispute. It is as aston¬ 
ishing as it is undeniable. The free States (slave¬ 
owners may well use that term in reproach and 
in derision) have only been free to do as their 
masters—the owners of slave property—directed. 

The population of the free States is over thir¬ 
teen millions ; of the slave States, over six mil¬ 
lions. There have been eighteen Presidential 
elections ; twelve Presidents were slaveholders; 
six were not, but Northern men with Southern 
sentiments. The slaveholders have held the 
Presidency for forty-eight years—more than two- 
thirds of the entire period. No Northern man 
has ever been re-elected; five of the slave-owners 
have been. As far as the Presidency is concerned, 
the slave-owners have had more than their equal 
rights! There are over twenty millions of free 
people in the Union ; the slaveholders numbered, 
in 1850, three hundred and forty-six thousand 




12 


and forty-seven. According to numbers, they 
should have had the Presidency but a single 
year; they have had it over forty-eight! 

Since 1809, the President pro tempore of the 
Senate has been a slaveholder—except Mr. South¬ 
ard, of New Jersey, and Mr. Bright, of Indiana, 
for five or six years in all! And they were zeal¬ 
ous adherents of the slave power ! A single year 
was all they could claim upon the principle of 
equal rights ! 

Since 1820, for thirty-eight years, closing with 
the present Congress, slave-owners have been 
Speakers of the House for thirty years, and free- 
State men for only eight years ! The Speaker, 
by the appointment of committees, controls the 
legislation of the country more than any other 
officer of the Government, and the committees 
never were appointed in so unfair and partisan a 
manner as in the present Congress ! 

In the thirty-five Congresses, we have had 
twenty-two Speakers who were slave-owners, 
and twelve who were free-State men. What 
class of men have had more than their equal 
righ s ? 

Since 1841, slave-owners have held the office of 
Secretary of the Navy, except two years, up to 
the organization of the present Cabinet; and 
since 1849, a slave-oivner has always been Secre¬ 
tary of War. The free States furnish most of the 
shipping and seamen for the navy, and most of 
the soldiers for the army ; but slave-owners com¬ 
mand them. Who have had more, in this, than 
their equal rights ? 

Since 1789, up to the present Administration, 
the Secretary of State has been appointed four¬ 
teen times from slave-owners, and only eight 
times from free-State men. This is the first offi¬ 
cer of the Cabinet, who has charge of the foreign 
relations of the country. What men have had 
more than their equal rights ? 

In the Supreme Court, five of the nine judges, 
including the Chief Justice, have always been 
slave-owners , and only four from the free States, 
and these must be sturdy adherents of the slave 
power. So that one department of the Govern¬ 
ment has been forever exclusively in the hands 
of slave-owners. Is this giving the other citizens 
their equal right# ? Nearly one hundred to one 
of the people of this country are not slave-owners , 
and more than three-fourths of the business of 
this court arises in the free States ! 

There is a class of the people having more po¬ 
litical power than any other class of citizens— 
namely, the slave-owners. There are three hun¬ 
dred and forty-six thousand and forty-seven of 
them, including men, women, and children. 
They admit and boast that they have controlled 
the Government for sixty years, and do now. 
They own three million two hundred and four 
thousand two hundred and eighty-seven slaves. 
Three-fifths of them are counted ; so that three 
hundred and forty-six thousand and forty-seven 
persons are counted as if they numbered in fact 
two million two hundred and sixty-eight thousand 
six hundred and nineteen in the scale of repre¬ 
sentation. These three hundred and forty-six thou¬ 
sand are counted nearly two million more than 
they arc , because they own slaves! Instead of 


three Representatives in Congress, they have 
thirty , because they own slaves ! But this is not 
all the political power they have. They control 
those States. The free whites in the slave 
States, not owning slaves, numbering five mil¬ 
lion eight hundred and thirty-eight thousand 
three hundred and fifty-seven, the great body of 
the people, do not seem practically to have any 
political power. Who ever heard of any of them 
being President, Vice President, a Cabinet officer, 
a Senator, or member of Congress, or a judge of 
the Supreme Court, or filling any other important 
office under this Government ? The slave-owners , 
by their property and political privileges, are made 
the ruling class in those States. They control the 
press, and force submission to their will, by a 
system of terrorism and constrained public sen¬ 
timent. We must add to their power the nearly 
six million non-slaveholders in the slave States. 
These three hundred and forty-six thousand 
slave-owners, bound together by a single inter¬ 
est, have therefore in their hands practically the 
political power of about eight millions of people, 
bond and free. They have 30 Senators and 90 
members in the House ! Do they claim more 
than that for their equal rights ? 

We find that three hundred and forty-six thou¬ 
sand slaveholders have had one department of 
the Government in their hands absolutely—the 
Judiciary; the Executive practically, and also 
the Legislative— all; and yet they are going out 
of the Union if they cannot have their equal 
rights ! 

This is no over statement. More than twenty- 
million of free people are governed by some three 
hundred and forty-six thousand slaveholders, 
and have been for sixty years ; and they claim 
more, or will go out of the Union after equal 
rights ! All I can say is, if they were fairly out of 
the Union, we might, after their departure, have 
equal rights ! 

They talk of an equilibrium —that is the phrase. 
A greater absurdity could not be imagined. How 
can you arrest the natural increase of over twen¬ 
ty millions of free people, and the immense im¬ 
migration here, to keep pace with three-fifths of 
your increase of slaves ? For, if one increases 
faster than the other, your equilibrium is over¬ 
thrown. You cannot do this ; and, therefore, 
you attempt to overthrow the principle of equal 
rights in representation. Every departure from 
this is a step towards despotism. Would it not 
be absurd for the shoemakers in the free States 
(and they are more numerous than the slave¬ 
holders) to demand an equilibrium, or say they 
would leave the Union ? Or for Rhode Island to 
say she would dash the Union into fragments, 
unless her relative strength in the Government 
was kept exactly stationary, as it was when 
there were but thirteen States in the Union ? 
We should answer to all these claims—“You 
are not wronged, your rights are not invaded, 
you have your just and equal share in the Gov¬ 
ernment in proportion to your numbers ; that 
is republican and democratic.” So have slave¬ 
holders ; and more than that, just so much more 
as slave representation increases it. And wheth¬ 
er there should be one or more slave States, 



13 


their equal rights can never be destroyed. In¬ 
creasing free States or decreasing slave States 
could never deprive a single slave State of their 
equal rights. It might lessen, it could never 
remove, the inequality and injustice that now 
give them absolute power in the Government. 

On a former occasion I presented my views 
more fully upon this subject, giving facts and 
figures, which no one here has ever disputed, and 
to which I will now merely refer .—See Appendix 
to Cong. Globe, vol. 33, page 697, 

XVII.—KANSAS MESSAGE. 

A strange delusion seems to pervade the mind 
of the President in relation to the state of parties 
in Kansas. This arises from the difficulty of in¬ 
ducing him to realize the fact that a great major¬ 
ity of the people of Kansas are opposed to the 
policy of the Administration ; are opposed to ex¬ 
tending Slavery into free territory, and making Kan¬ 
sas a slave State. The President speaks of one of 
the political parties of Kansas as “ enemies ” of 
the Government, “ revolutionary , and in a state of 
rebellion;” and of the other, as “friends of the 
Government, loyal, and strictly regular,” in all 
they have done ! The Free-State party is the il¬ 
legal and the Pro-Slavery party is the legal 
political party, according to the President. He 
makes no unkind allusion to the many outrages 
of his friends upon the people of Kansas. Against 
Border-Ruffian invasion and usurpation; against 
judicial corruption and oppression ; against elec¬ 
tion frauds, illegal voting, and false returns; 
against the crimes of robbery, arson, and murder, 
that his friends have been regularly committing 
for the last four years, he makes no complaint. 
He denounces one political party as rebels, and 
endorses the other as regular. The censure is as 
undeserved as the praise is unmerited. 

He declares that the Government of Kansas, 
(set up by Border-Ruffian invasion, as has been 

* The gentleman from Missou i, (Mr. Blair,) in a recent 
speech, takes the same position. He says: 

“ And now here is another question in which this strug¬ 
gle between capital and labor is presented in its most 
odious and revolting form. Here is a colossal aggrega¬ 
tion of wealth invested in negroes, which undertakes to 
seize this Government, to pervert it to its own purpose, 
and to prevent the freemen of the country from entering 
the Territories except in competition with slave labor; 
and the Democratic party, instead of standing where it 
used to stand, in opposition to these anti-Democratic 
measures, is as servile a tool of the oligarchy as are tne 
negro slaves themselves. 

“This is no question of North and South. It is a ques 
tion between those wtio contend for caste and privilege, 
and those who neither have nor desire to have privileges 
beyond iheir fellows. It is the old question that has al¬ 
ways, in all free countries, subsisted—the question of the 
wealthy and crafty few, eudeavoryig to steal from the 
masses of the people all the political power of the Gov¬ 
ernment. Those gentlemen are wrong who say that it is 
a question of North and South. If there is one class of 
people on this continent more interested than another in 
putting a stop to the extension of Slavery into the Terri¬ 
tories, it is the free white laborers of the South. They 
have infinitely more interest in the matter than any other 
class of the people, because they have felt the pressure 
of the institution. They have been shut out from all 
ownership in the soil, and driven out of all employment 
in the States where Slavery now exists; and should we 
allow the territories of the Government to be closed 
against them, they will have no escape fiom the oppres¬ 
sion which has ground them to the dust. No, sir; it is 
not a question between the North and South. It is a 
question which commends itself especially to the non¬ 
slaveholding and laboring white men of the South.” 


established by evidence,) which the people would 
otherwise have subverted, has been maintained 
by the troops of the United States. What an ad¬ 
mission is here involuntarily made, that the peo¬ 
ple of Kansas have been and are now kept in sub¬ 
jection to the slave power by force ! Who ever 
before heard of the necessity of a military force 
to prevent the minority from taking the rule out 
of the hands of the majority? To force Slavery 
into a free Territory , and upon an unwilling people, 
all the power of the past and present Adminis¬ 
trations has been exerted. Every species of in¬ 
justice and oppression has been connived at and 
encouraged ; the most outrageous frauds have 
been sanctioned and adopted ; criminal prosecu¬ 
tions for political opinions corruptly instituted; 
leading Free-State men unlawfully arrested and 
imprisoned; crime left unpunished, and criminals 
protected; and a standing army, in violation oi 
law, has been and is now stationed in Kansas, to 
force the people to submission. All this, and 
much more, has been done to make Kansas a slave 
State. And all in vain. It has only inspired an 
unyielding spirit of resistance in the people. It 
has only deepened and strengthened their love of 
I liberty and hatred of oppression. 

The issue between the President and the peo¬ 
ple of Kansas is simply this: he is determined to 
' make Kansas a slave State, in spite of the people ; 
and they are determined it shall be a free State, 
in spite of the President. By the law, the people 
| of Kansas were to be left perfectly free to form 
and regulate their own institutions in their own 
way. They do not understand “ non-interven¬ 
tion ” to mean Executive dictation! or “ popular 
sovereignty ,” that the minority shall rule! And 
they will never understand it—they never will 
submit to it. Instead of regulating their own 
affairs, they are denied the right to be heard in 
regard to the Constitution that is to be forced 
upon them. Their consent is not required. Their 
protest is not regarded. And, after all these 
pledges and professions, Slavery is to be forced 
upon them, against their recorded will and their 
earnest protestations, by the Congress of the 
United States and the power of the General 
Government! 

XVIII. — REBELLION. 

The old charge of rebellion is made anew. In 
reviving thi3 foolish and exploded false pretence, 
the President reflects upon the Kansas judiciary. 
Their decision upon this question should be treat¬ 
ed with as ready respect, by the President at 
least, as an extra-judicial opinion of the Supreme 
Court. This question has been judicially settled. 
During the last Administration, indictments were 
directed and pronounced against Governor Rob¬ 
inson and ninety-seven other leading Free-State 
men, for treason and constructive treason, be¬ 
cause they had taken steps for the admission of 
Kansas as a free State—this same rebellion of 
the people against the minority, that the Presi¬ 
dent has repeated so often. The people had 
peaceably formed a free-State Constitution, and 
elected officers under it, so as to put it into im¬ 
mediate operation, if admitted. The Lecomp- 
tonites have done the same, and a little more; 
for they have not only elected officers under their 










14 


Constitution, but have abolished the Governor 
and Legislature, and the officers of election — 
in fact , set aside the whole Territorial Government. 
As to rebellion, the President’s “ friends ” are 
worse off than his enemies in Kansas. Minnesota 
has elected her officers. Is Minnesota in rebel¬ 
lion? Is a Territory in rebellion by preparing 
for and asking admission as a State? 

Indictments against the leading Free-State 
men were directed and found, and they were ar¬ 
rested and imprisoned. The judges appointed 
by the last Administration were the willing tools 
in this act of tyranny and oppression—judges 
who issued process to destroy hotels and print¬ 
ing presses as nuisances if owned by Free-State 
men, and who discharged men arrested and in¬ 
dicted for murder if they belonged to the Pro- 
Slavery faction. No crime committed against a 
Free-State man has ever been heard of as hav¬ 
ing been redressed or punished by them. I drew 
articles of impeachment to present in the last 
Congress against one of these corrupt judges, 
Lecompte; but the Slave Power is so strong in 
this Government, that there is no place in it 
where he could be fairly tried and justly pun¬ 
ished. It would have been as idle as the com¬ 
plaints that Governor Geary preferred against 
him; and for that reason alone I abandoned it. 

After a long delay and imprisonment, these 
ninety-eight State prisoners and Administration 
rebels were brought to trial before these judges— 
the friends and officials of the past and present 
Administrations. And even Lecompte and Cato 
were forced to acknowledge that they had done 
nothing criminal, and the indictments were dis¬ 
missed. The intended purpose was answered: 
while these men were imprisoned, the Lecompton 
fraud had been planned and prepared. After 
all this, for the President to call these proceed¬ 
ings of the Free-State party rebellious, is disre¬ 
spectful to the pure judiciary of Kansas— men 
who would go as far for Slavery as the most de¬ 
graded of men dare go; whose judicial action 
the President should respect, if no one else does. 

XIX.—GOVERNORS OF KANSAS. 

Since October, 1854, counting the Secretaries 
who have acted as Governors, Kansas has had 
seven Governors—Reeder, Shannon, Woodson, 
Geary, Walker, Stanton, and Denver—all ap¬ 
pointed by President Pierce or Buchanan, within 
a little over three years; and all removed by 
them, or forced to resign, but Denver, and it is 
said he is soon to be removed. Both Adminis¬ 
trations were insaaely bent upon forcing Slavery 
into Kansas, the last being (like the last state of 
the man who took into his council seven other 
spirits more wicked than himself) “ worse than 
the first.” All these men were the party friends 
of the Presidents appointing them, some of them 
Southern men ; some Northern men with South¬ 
ern sentiments. Two of them voted in Congress 
to repeal the Missouri compromise, and open 
Kansas to Slavery ; and all were bound by their 
party prejudices and party feelings to carry out 
the wishes of their party in Kansas. Bound, too, 
by every motive of interest or ambition to carry 
out that policy—selected by the President and 
removable at his will; selected as the very man 


in each case best fitted to aid in the great pur¬ 
pose of making Kansas a slave State—each of 
these men went to Kansas bitterly prejudiced 
against the Free-State party, just as ihe Presi¬ 
dent is now. Some of them were men of great 
ability and rare and ripe experience, who were 
as well qualified by their high standing and po¬ 
sition to command respect and inspire confidence 
as any that could have been selected. Yet all 
these men have learned to respect the rights of 
the people of Kansas when they came to know 
them, however strongly prejudiced against them 
before. All these men have been forced to bear 
unwilling testimony in their favor. And when 
the cry of oppression has been heard from that 
far-off Territory, and these men have been called 
upon to explain why there was disturbance, and 
why there was complaint, they have been com¬ 
pelled to say the disturbances were the work of 
the Pro-Slavery party and their allies, and that 
the Free-State men had been wronged and tram¬ 
pled upon. Reeder said so, and he opposed, as 
well as he could, Missouri invasion and dicta¬ 
tion, and he was removed 1 

Shannon , partisan as he was, and reckless as 
he was, under whose rule almost every spot in 
Kansas was witness to some great crime—so that 
it furnishes to this day its legend of horror writ¬ 
ten in blood—even he, at last, was forced to con¬ 
fess the same. The light of truth shone too 
brightly around him to he resisted, and then he 
was removed! 

Geary appears to have desired to do justice to 
the people of Kansas. He said the disturbances 
were made by the Pro-Slavery party, and the 
Free-State party bad been greatly wronged. He 
even attempted to punish crime; he stood by 
and heard the dying declaration of Buffum, mur¬ 
dered by Hayes ; and he promised to see that 
the murderer was punished. He caused him to 
be arrested, and he was indicted by a Pro-Sla- 
very grand jury. Judge Lecompte discharged 
him. Again he was arrested, and again dis¬ 
charged. The Governor appealed to the Presi¬ 
dent to remove Judge Lecompte: It was said 
that he would be removed; he was not removed, 
but Governor Geary was ! 

Governor Walker went there, believing in re¬ 
bellion, and proclaiming rebellion, until he learn¬ 
ed it was only a paper rebellion, made by the 
Executive to cover its own proceedings. He 
found the people orderly and peaceable; he found 
that all they asked wa3 the rights of American 
freemen, to have a voice in making the Govern¬ 
ment and the Constitution under which they were 
to live. He promised this to them, for himself, 
for the President and the Cabinet; he pledged 
his honor to see that this was allowed to them ; 
but when it was found the people would not con¬ 
sent to make Kansas a slave State, he was re¬ 
quired to violate his promises and his pledge of 
honor; this he would not do, and he was forced 
to resign! 

Governor Stanton had again and again pledged 
the Administration (and he had authority to do 
so) that the Constitution should be submitted to 
a fair vote; and when the Convention—that has 
since become a fugitive from justice—refused to 





do this, he called together the Legislature, who 
passed a law requiring its submission; and it 
was submitted. The election under this law es¬ 
tablished the great fact that the Free-State party 
were, in truth, the people of Kansas. For this 
act of honesty and independence, Stanton was 
removed! 

It may be said, to the credit of these men, that 
not one of them—no man of character enough 
to hold the place—has ever yet been found who 
would do the work required at his hands. They 
all give their testimony against the insane folly 
of attempting to force Slavery upon the people 
of Kansas. If any man will not believe their 
united testimony, he would not believe though a 
witness should rise from the dead. But if no 
Governor would do all the dirty work required, 
the man has at last been found that will. Cal¬ 
houn, once President of a Convention—no more 
an officer than the president of a last year’s cau¬ 
cus—has all the power of the Territory placed 
in his hands. He is as irresponsible, and his 
power is as irrepealable, as that of the Lecomp- 
ton Convention—with this Administration. He 
hesitates at nothing. Governors are no longer 
needed. 

It is said he dare not return to Kansas. String- 
fellow, Atchison, Buford, and their desperate com¬ 
peers, have left Kansas in despair, and dream 
no longer that Slavery can be forced upon her 
people. But this Administration, more desperate 
than they, is still insanely and pertinaciously la¬ 
boring to accomplish it. 

XX. -PEACE IN KANSAS. 

It is urged that admitting Kansas under the 
Lecompton Constitution would secure '•'■peace.” 
No greater mistake could be made. Instead of 
peace, it would be a declaration of civil war. 
The people of Kansas never will submit, and 
never should submit, to such an act of oppres¬ 
sion. “There is a point beyond which a free 
people cannot be driven.” Congress would then 
indeed force them into rebellion in defence of 
the inalienable right of sell-government, in de¬ 
fence of their right to a republican Govern¬ 
ment, not in name only, but in fact. Any at¬ 
tempt to enforce that rejected and detested Con¬ 
stitution upon the people of Kansas would be 
unavailing. They would not stand alone in that 
struggle. Public opinion is stronger than this 
Administration and Slavery combined. The rash 
attempt might plunge the country into a civil 
war, and deluge Kansas in blood, but it would be 
unsuccessful. 

Congress never had a question before it, fraught 
with more fearful consequences — one more 
certain to endanger the peace of the country, if 
it is not settled wisely and rightly. Peace can¬ 
not be secured by consummating this great 
wrong upon the rights of a free people. Justice 
to the people of Kansas can alone secure peace 
and tranquillity, for justice and peace go hand in 
hand. 

Is it an evidence of peace, that the House of 
Representatives in Kansas, by nearly a unani¬ 
mous vote, passed an act making it felony, pun¬ 
ishable with death, to attempt to put that Con¬ 
stitution in force in Kansas, or to accept any office 
under it? Is it an evidence of peace, that pub¬ 


lic meetings assemble in Kansas, and resolve, 
without a dissenting voice, that in case Congress 
adopts the Lecompton Constitution, the people 
of Kansas will put the Topeka Constitution into 
operation, and stand by it at every hazard? Is 
it an evidence of peace, that all reliable intelli¬ 
gence from Kansas represents the people as fixed 
in their purpose of resistance, if the Lecompton 
Constitution i3 attempted to be forced upon 
them? They say: 

“If it is rebellion for us to insist on our right to live 
under our own Government—a Government born of the 
popu ar will, baptized in the blood of our martyrs, and 
endorsed by the people’s votes, then we are ready for it.” 

The newspapers of Kansas express the same 
determination: 

“We know t^ at, let come what mry, no Pro-Slavery 
Legislature or officer will ever be allowed to assume the 
reins of power. Cost what it may, we stand to this, and 
will support it whi'e a free voice is left to encourage ac¬ 
tion, or a free arm left to strike a blow ! ”— Leavenworth. 
Times. 

“There is no mistaking it—no evading it. There can 
be no compromise. It is either submit and be slaves, or 
resist and be freemen ! Lawrence Republican. 

An extract from a letter of L. A. Prather, Esq., 
will serve to indicate the state of feeling in Kansas : 

“ I am a Democrat, and that in the broadest sense of 
the term. I am also a Southerner, from the bosom of old 
Virginia; and yet so much am I opposed to the Lecompton 
Constitution, that if Congress undertakes to force it upon 
us, I will fight—yes, sir. 1 will suffer death, rather than 
submit to the damnable thing; I swear, by the great 
Eternal, that I will resist it as "long as I live ; and if it is 
not destroyed during my life, I will disinherit my chil¬ 
dren if they will not promise to struggle against it after I 
am gone.” 

Thus speaks one of the men nominated on the 
same ticket with Calhoun as a delegate to the 
•Lecompton Convention, and whose name, without 
his authority, was placed to the pledge, signed by 
Calhoun and others, to submit the Constitution 
to the people, for their adoption or rejection. He 
did not attend the Convention. Only a bare ma¬ 
jority of the delegates elected did attend. 

The following is a copy of the last resolution 
passed by the Kansas Legislature before its ad¬ 
journment : 

“ Resolvtd by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of 
Kansas , the Council concurring , That we do hereby, for 
the last time, solemnly protest against the admission of 
Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton Constitution; 
that we hurl back with scorn the libellous changes con¬ 
tained m t lie message of the President accompanying the 
Lecompton Constitution, to the effect that the freemen of 
Kansas are a lawless people ; that, relying upon the jus¬ 
tice of our cause, we do hereby, in behalf of the people we 
represent, solemnly pledge ourselves to each other, to our 
friends in Congress and in the States, k our lives, our for¬ 
tunes, and our sacred honor.’ to resist the Lecompton 
Constitution and Government by force of arms, if neces¬ 
sary; that in this perilous hour of our history we appeal 
to the civil zed world for the rectitude of our position, and 
call upon the friends of Freedom everywhere to array 
themselves against this last act of oppression in the Kan¬ 
sas drama. 

“ Resolved, That the Governor be requested to immedi¬ 
ately transmit certified copies of these resolutions to the 
President, the Speaker of tl e House of Representatives, 
and the President of the Senate, of the Congress of the 
United States, and a copy be transmitted to our Delegate 
in Congress, and to bo h branches of Congress ” 

They declare their fixed purpose to resist this 
rejected minority Constitution by force of arms, 
if attempted to be forced upon them. Does 
this look like peace, if Congress adopts the Le¬ 
compton fraud ? If that is done, and attempted 
to be enforced, not peace, but war, will be the 
necessary and certain consequence. 





LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


0 


0 016 087 965 8 


WASHINGTON, D. 0. 

BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 

1858. 














